....She's the "victim" here...but her wishes for a quiet mystery writing career under a pseudonym is lost to her. Probably forever, unless she starts all over again from scratch with new characters and stories; a likely multiyear effort

My thoughts exactly as I was reading through. First, I took it as a marketing effort. But now I could understand how disappointed she would be.

She probably started writing this in say 2007-08 and finished by 2009-10. She waited for almost 2/3 years for the book to get a publisher: to prove that she was really talented and Harry Potter was not an accident. She even got great comments she was hoping for. And now what, we are back on page one; selling again because of brand name, not on merit. She probably will never get that opportunity again.

Finished. More of a traditional style, sleuth-assistant, with mostly interviews (like poirot...).

Story/prose wise, Rowling really has a style (I never read any of the Harry Potter or C V) and the characters are really likeable (Both Strike and Robin already left a mark with one book and would be great as series chars).

Story flowed nicely and pretty fast (except in some cases). Different setting and good char depictions/development. There are cliches (stupid police, no-client detective become famous with 'the case').

I wasn't really awed at the ending and she did not explain some points fully, say, how Cormoran reached at certain conclusions. As some one else said, it ended too soon. I say, 3.5(or even 4)/5.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompe

...I think some things in the plot did not hold together. You can check a mobile number and see who have been called which at one point in the story would have been the obvious thing to try to do...

From there onwards even I was waiting impatiently for them to check the call list. Even petty cases/thieves are tracked using mobiles nowadays. May be she wrote it 3/4 yrs (?) back can explain that (or any UK restrictions, u know prism and all)?

I read the book and enjoyed it. I agree about the cliches, and the ending didn't surprise me particularly. But I liked the characters of Strike and Robin and would read another in the series if she writes it and see what I think from there.

Harry Potter creator JK Rowling has accepted a substantial charity donation from the law firm that revealed she was writing under a pseudonym.

The writer brought a legal action against Chris Gossage, a partner at Russells Solicitors, and his friend, Judith Callegari.

Rowling was revealed as the writer of crime novel The Cuckoo's Calling in a Sunday Times article.

The author had published the book under the pen name Robert Galbraith.

Rowling's solicitor told Mr Justice Tugendhat that Russells had contacted the writer's agent after the story was published, revealing it was Mr Gossage who had divulged the confidential information to Ms Callegari.

Ms Callegari then revealed the information in the course of a Twitter exchange with a journalist.

The court heard Rowling had been "left dismayed and distressed by such a fundamental betrayal of trust".

Mr Gossage, Ms Callegari and Russells all apologised and the firm agreed to pay the author's legal costs.

It also agreed to make a payment, by way of damages, to the Soldiers' Charity, formerly known as the Army Benevolent Fund.

Rowling explained that she was donating the money "partly as a thank you to the army people" who helped her with research.

"But also because writing a hero who is a veteran has given me an even greater appreciation and understanding of exactly how much this charity does for ex-servicemen and their families, and how much that support is needed," she said.
...
Rowling said she would also be donating all the royalties for the book to the charity.
...

The fact that a solicitor betrays a client's trust is indeed shocking. He was very lucky indeed to get away with a fine, rather than being "struck off" by the Law Society for gross professional misconduct.

The fact that a solicitor betrays a client's trust is indeed shocking. He was very lucky indeed to get away with a fine, rather than being "struck off" by the Law Society for gross professional misconduct.

To a point, I agree; but to me, there are shades of wrongdoing and I rate this one as fairly minor.

No, not really. Do you honestly not see that? Would you really want to your lawyer to feel it was ok to pick and choose what promises, confidences and rules of professional ethics he upheld and which he ignored concerning your affairs?

No, not really. Do you honestly not see that? Would you really want to your lawyer to feel it was ok to pick and choose what promises, confidences and rules of professional ethics he upheld and which he ignored concerning your affairs?

His punishment would be based on what he revealed. In the case of the attorney in question, he should've been fined and had his license suspended for a year.

I had a chance to listen to the book last week. I liked it.
I didn't guess whodunit...rather, I guessed wrong right up until the reveal.
I think the book won me over early on with the line something like "Strike was impressed by her initiative and ability to use punctuation."

I wonder if JK got inspiration for Strike from Warren Zevon's "Werewolves of London?"
"He's that hairy-handed gent who ran amok in Kent. Lately he's been overheard in Mayfair...."